Re: Engaging apps folks

Erik Nordmark wrote:
>>On 28-jun-04, at 14:45, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And if the long-lived ID is one of the locators we can provide 
>>>compatbility
>>>for unmodified applications which do referrals and callbacks.
>>
>>We should really talk to some apps people to figure out how important 
>>this is. It's entirely trivial to shoot yourself in the foot today with 
>>NAT or multiple addresses anyway, and then there is dual stack. How are 
>>referrals going to work when a future participant in the communication 
>>may be limited to one IP version, which happens to be the other one 
>>than the one used by current participants?
>>
>>It may very well be that apps and protocols need to be changed anyway 
>>in order to work with IPv6, or IPv4+IPv6.
> 
> 
> My experience, and I think Kurt said something similar, is that it
> is hard to engage application folks without something concrete like
> a proposal that they look at. This makes it tricky to get feedback before
> we have nailed down enough of the approach to be able write down how it
> will affect applications, unless we do the work to present the apps folks
> with a menu having different choices.

What they see is an API and its explicit and implied semantics. So not only
do we need to resolve the endless debate about the nature of an id, we also
have to figure out how that will be represented in socket semantics.

 From painful experience, it is not easy to persuade middleware designers
to change anything in the way they use sockets.

    Brian